Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ThirdEye who wrote (149144)	5/27/2001 7:06:35 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769670

I agree fully with the US military's reticence on the land mine issue. Our armed forces rely on technology rather than numerical superiority to stay on top and to reduce casualties. And I suspect the US expects all signatories to pacts it has also signed to adhere to those terms. Those we don't sign on to would obviously be exempt. JLA

To: ThirdEye who wrote (149144)	5/27/2001 7:29:37 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

And the most freedom, you might add, if you understood the problem. Obviously, you don't. The United States is the single outpost in the world that protects (not bestow) the God-given right of self-defense in its constitution. Every incident of genocide in history has been preceded by disarming the people. The UN has gone bad, thanks in no small part to our former "president" who collaborated by signing treaties that give away our sovereign rights and turn over control even of our homeland to the UN. This very morning there was a program on television showing how the UN could issue edicts that deprived private landowners of control of their own land. It's not a tempest in a teapot, it's a global battle. As for cutting off funding for programs that purport to educate other people about the patently obvious, Bush did the right thing. Pouring our money down a hole does them no good. If you think countries that signed some treaty about land mines will honor that treaty when push comes to shove, you're a dreamer. At least we hold an honorable position in the matter, one not based on a lie. >>>>>>So whatever this effort is to restrict small arms proliferation, it could certainly be interpreted as an attack on the country that has the most small arms in private hands,